MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743534813 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1363824

A systematic review of workplace disclosure and accommodation requests among youth and young adults with disabilities

2017· review· en· W2743534813 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyInclusion (mineral)Stigma (botany)AccommodationMedical model of disabilityReasonable accommodationSystematic reviewMEDLINEMedical educationMedicineSocial psychologyPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The objective of this systematic review is to critically appraise the literature on disability disclosure and workplace accommodations for youth and young adults with disabilities. METHODS: Systematic searches of nine international databases identified 27 studies meeting our inclusion criteria. These studies were analyzed with respect to the characteristics of the participants, methodology, results of the studies and the quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Among the 27 studies, 18,419 participants (aged 14-33, mean 23.9 years) were represented across seven countries. Barriers to disability disclosure and requests for workplace accommodations were found at the individual (i.e., disability type, severity, poor self-concept, and advocacy skills), employment (i.e., type of industry, and working conditions, lack of supports), and societal levels (i.e., stigma/discrimination). Facilitators of disability disclosure included individual factors (i.e., knowledge of supports and workplace rights, self-advocacy skills), employment (i.e., training/supports, effective communication with employers, realizing the benefits of accommodations), and societal factors (i.e., positive attitudes toward people with disabilities). There was little consensus on the processes and timing of how disability should be discussed in the workplace among youth with disabilities. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the complexities of disability disclosure for youth with disabilities. More studies are needed to explore issues of workplace disclosure and accommodations for young people to improve disclosure strategies and the process of providing appropriate accommodations. Implications for Rehabilitation Clinicians, educators, and parents should support youth to become self-aware and build self-advocacy skills so they can make an informed decision about how and when to disclose their condition to employers. Clinicians, educators, and employers should help youth with disabilities to understand the benefits of disclosing their disability, and educate them on the supports available so they can remain healthy and productive in the workplace. Clinicians should advocate for employers to create a positive and supportive environment where youth feel comfortable disclosing their condition.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it